Public Bill Committee

[Mr Roger Gale in the Chair]

Roger Gale: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. There being no amendments tabled, we move straight to clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Gale. You are an experienced and well liked member of the Chairmen’s Panel and someone who is firm, but always fair.
I thank each and every member of the Committee for agreeing to serve on the Bill. I am obliged to them all. I especially thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, for their help and support on Second Reading.
The clause introduces a deemed predecease rule in certain limited circumstances, as do clauses 2 and 3. Overall, under clause 1 a person who killed a deceased person, under clause 2 a person who disclaims an inheritance, and under clause 3 a person who dies a single parent under the age of 18, will all be deemed to have died immediately before the deceased for inheritance purposes. The aim of the Bill is to make the law fairer by removing technicalities that run contrary to the general policy rules on succession. It will stop people being unfairly disinherited in certain limited circumstances.
I commend the clause, and indeed the Bill, to the Committee.

Robert Flello: Mr Gale, I welcome the opportunity to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship as an Opposition spokesman, having previously served on the Back Benches on many of your extremely well run Committees.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire on introducing the Bill and on the success that he has enjoyed thus far and, I hope, continues to enjoy. On the face of it, the Bill is a dry measure, but it is important. It was noted on Second Reading that some 200 cases to which the measure is relevant arise each year; from now on, the legislation will apply to those cases, with positive effect, we hope.
I am surprised and, I have to say, slightly disappointed that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) was not appointed to the Committee. I always enjoy his input. On Second Reading he highlighted the Law Commission recommendation on trust provisions and its concern that a killer, for example, could benefit indirectly where assets were settled in trust for minor beneficiaries. In his response, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that
“should the Bill be given a Second Reading and should evidence to the contrary arise”—
that is, that a problem is likely to arise—
“I am happy to look at the matter by way of possible amendment to the Bill”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 1134.]
As no amendments have been tabled, I seek reassurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he gave the matter further consideration and sought additional evidence. I am not aware of any such evidence, but I would welcome any comments he wishes to make.
Her Majesty’s official Opposition have no further concerns about the Bill. Everything else was thoroughly debated, at great length. The hon. Member for Bury North may wish to offer a further detailed and comprehensive analysis in Committee, but with the burning wish that that is not the case, I again thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Gale, and congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire.

Jonathan Djanogly: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire on choosing the Bill and getting it successfully to this stage of proceedings. I announced on Second Reading that the Government support the measure because it will make the law fairer. That is important in any situation, but perhaps it is especially so in the tragic circumstances of unlawful killing or early death, in which some provisions will operate.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned the trust issue that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised on Second Reading. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and, without spending too long on a complicated matter, I can tell the Committee that when the Ministry of Justice consulted on the proposals in December 2009 as part of the consultation on and pre-legislative scrutiny of the Civil Law Reform Bill, several criticisms were made of the special trust provisions. A small number of consultees doubted whether they were necessary, and pointed out that the protection they conferred was limited.
The Ministry of Justice re-examined the proposals with the Law Commission and agreed that they should be removed. The law already provides protection for minors’ inheritances. In reaching those conclusions, we have worked closely with the Law Commission, which is content with the Bill, and taken careful account of expert practitioners’ views.
The Bill will implement the Law Commission’s recommendations in its 2005 report, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”, subject to modifications arising out of the consideration of the results of the pre-legislative scrutiny. I am grateful to the Law Commission for its work on the subject.

Greg Knight: I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for his constructive comments. After the Second Reading debate, I asked the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed whether he wished to be a member of the Committee and, indeed, to place his ideas before it by way of an amendment. However, he indicated that he was broadly content to leave matters as they were following the Second Reading debate. If the Bill proceeds today, it is open to him to table an amendment on Report if he still feels troubled.
I underline the Minister’s comments that the special trust provisions are unnecessary. They would also be expensive to operate. The Minister’s view, which I share, is that existing law already gives the court power to intervene and supervise the administration of an estate when dealing with a minor.
I believe that the current provisions are wide enough to deal with the sort of problem that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned, and that the Bill is a better measure without the additional provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose.